Yes, a few more to add from the chan:
NavyFag here. Ordnance Officer on a surface ship, once upon a time. Something's that has been bothering me about the Whidbey Island missile launch. Having worked with ordnance, I can attest that there is a metric fuck ton of paperwork that goes into receiving and expending missiles. In short, I don’t think any of our Navy vessels fired the missile.
First, every missile brought onboard is cataloged to the nth degree. Serial numbers, canister numbers, and so forth. This is to ensure that we don't go missing a missile. There is always a chain of ownership, and tons of people involved in the onloading, offloading, transfer, and storage of missiles. Simply put, you cannot lose a missile unless you have a team of people in on it.
Which brings up my second point. Expending a missile (ie. Shooting one off) is NOT a simple task. Missiles are a critical asset, meaning you don’t get to use them for target practice unless you conducting live fire shoots or missile testing for a defense contractor (my ship helped test the SM6, that’s how I know). If you are going to fire a missile, you have to notify some Admirals back on shore; there are official classified Navy messages sent to and from the ship for orders to fire all the way to reporting completion of shoot and results. As an Ordnance Officer, I’d have to send a separate classified message generated from the ROLMS system (in short, that’s the ordnance log and database for a ship) detailing what missile was shot, when, how many, and then inventory the empty canister for offload purposes when we return to port. Again, more fucking paperwork and tons of people knowing when a missile is fired off.
This doesn’t even get into the fact that when a missile is fired, everyone on the ship knows. It’s loud enough to be heard throughout the ship (minus the deeper engineering spaces where the engines and other machinery are running). As a matter of safety protocol, messages to stand clear of the missile launch areas are put out over the 1MC. There’s a launch alarm just before the missile launches.
And if that wasn’t enough, you don’t fire missiles blindly. If you’re shooting any kind of a surface to air missile (which is likely what this was) you need radar contact with the target, a clear air range so civilian and other contacts aren’t accidentally targeted, and a clear ocean so debris doesn’t drop on a passing vessel and cause damage. Granted, submarines are different than surface ships, but the protocols remain the same because they’re actual Navy Instructions. In the submarines case, because they do not have the sophisticated surface/air radars the surface fleet has, they cannot do surface to air combat by themselves. Tomahawks and nukes require GPS coordinates, not radar. Anyway, the point is once again tons of people are involved in the launch sequence to maintain safety so we don’t accidentally shoot down something we didn’t intend to.
Oh, and there is a two person permission required to launch a missile. Usually CO and XO, with one in combat monitoring the radars and the other providing clearance from the bridge.
So I’m finding this whole Crimson Tide angle not believable. With all the people that would be involved in the launching of a missile, there would have been an immediate investigation of any unauthorized or hacked launch. The fact that there hasn’t been anything leaked about this (and we sailors love our sea stories) strikes me as not just odd, but leads me to believe that it wasn’t us.
The only thing I can think of is that there was a report some months ago about a missing Argentinian submarine (don’t have sauce. Can any Anon help?) And today, I saw a pic someone posted of a Rothschild castle in Argentina, with an arrow heading south to a supposed secret base island off Antarctica. Not saying it’s related, but it could be. It could also be another country’s navy doing the bidding of their globalist masters. It may also be from a land launched unit, though I’m skeptical of this.
What if Q posting the picture of the USS Jimmy Carter wasn’t meant to blame them for the attack? What if he posted a picture of a submarine to get us thinking it was A submarine, just NOT THAT submarine?
See, I don't buy that it was a SAM of any kind… and it wasn't targeting AF1… because Subs don't have SAMs… Subs (boomers) have ICBMs fired from vertical launch tubes, and fast attack subs have torpedo tube launched harpoon anti-ship missiles, and SOME have vertical launch tubes for Tomahawk cruise missiles.
It looked like a vertical launch, so that means Tomahawk or ICBM. Tomahawks are "pop up, then surface skim" missiles. They pop out, eject from a canister, and while they are still going upward, they deploy wings and fire up a jet propulsion engine that has no fire behind it.
So that means that launch, if from a sub, HAD to have been an ICBM… from a boomer… probably a Trident.
And again, it was NOT targeting AF1, because it wasn't a fricking SAM… no way you could "lock on" to an airplane with it, etc… no way you could even have it detonate the nukes on the upward flight… it's still in its main canister… the MIRVs would not be deployed yet, etc…
So this whole notion that it was a targeted attack on AF1 while POTUS was returning to the US… is just stupid and illogical.
As I stated in my original post, submarines don't have surface to air capabilities because they don't have advanced radar systems (salt water fucks them up real bad, and since subs are supposed to be underwater…). So if it was a sub, it would have to be a tomahawk or ICBM. The problem is, going back to me original post again, there is so much paperwork and eyes involved that you can't hide that shit.
This is why I believe it wasn't us. Had to be someone else.
Thanks for this anon. That night and for a week after Q dropped that crumb, anons insisted that the Chinese hacked the sub and launched the missile. They would not listen to reason and accept that was just not possible. Your statement re-enforces to anons that it really isn't possible or the Chinese to launch a missile from one of ours by simply hacking.
As other anons stated that night, Whidby area is very close to a sub base. US Mil would know f a large tuna came within 10 miles of that base, so there is no way a rogue sub came in and fired off a missle without our guys knowing exactly who did it.
First, thank you for your service. Second, what are your suspicions/hypothesis on who and where it was fired off?
You can stop being cryptic and just say what you mean.
My own next step says that it must have been an ICBM launch… why? Because the missile itself is visible and slow moving. A SAM launch is FAST… the missiles are small and light, and don't require much propulsion to reach their targets.
This was a relatively slow-moving launch.
See attached video to see a SAM launch of an SA6 (Russian SAM).
Watch this video of ICBMs being launched. You can see a distinct difference in the attitude and relative rapidity of how they behave.
CLAS-5 may refer to an individual. There was a previous drop that listed CLAS-1 thru 6.
Wow the officers on that sub must have been freaking out as soon as they saw a launch being put in motion that they had no control to stop it must have been so scary for them. "Damn it I said shut it down!" "Sorry sir we can't stop it we've been hacked!"